THAT'S WHAT I'M SCREAMINGhttps://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com
This Is All The News Fit To Print And My Rants As Well.Thu, 17 Aug 2017 05:25:28 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngTHAT'S WHAT I'M SCREAMINGhttps://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com
The Press Is Not Trusted or Popularhttps://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/the-press-is-not-trusted-or-popular/
https://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/the-press-is-not-trusted-or-popular/#respondThu, 17 Aug 2017 05:25:24 +0000http://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/?p=3294]]>By: Brent Bozell

CNN delighted in reporting the results of a recent poll question that asked: “How much do you trust the things you hear in official communications from the White House? Do you trust almost all, most of it, just some of it, or nothing at all?”

If a regular viewer of CNN were to choose anything higher than zero, you’d assume he was a victim of the opioid epidemic. Given the size of CNN’s audience as a percentage of the national population, this was an issue.

Forty-three percent picked “some of it,” as people tend to do in a poll. Twenty-four percent chose “almost all” or “most,” and 30 percent picked “nothing at all.”

Proving once again its inability to say anything at all positive about President Trump’s administration, CNN presented these poll results as “only 24 percent trust the White House” and pitched it as a glorious victory for the “objective” media and independent “fact-checkers.”

On his show “Reliable Sources,” Brian Stelter turned to Angie Drobnic Holan of the liberal site PolitiFact and said: “I admit this is a softball, but does this poll show the strength of journalism? That, yes, the public may be skeptical of our work, but they are paying attention to our reporting and they are learning about Trump’s fibs and falsehoods?” (She said yes.)

But guess what CNN didn’t ask in this poll to test public confidence: “How much do you trust the things you hear from CNN (or the rest of the press)? All of it, some of it or not at all?” Guess what else CNN never asked during former President Obama’s first summer: “How much do you trust the things you hear in official communications from the White House?”

Eight years ago, CNN conducted a National Report Card, and in addition to grading the politicians, it asked the public to give a grade to the news media. It surely winced at the results: Forty-nine percent gave the media an F, and 19 percent gave them a D. (Just 4 percent gave them an A; 11 percent gave them a B, and 18 percent gave them a C.)

In July, a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll asked how much people trust the Trump administration and the media. Thirty-seven percent said they had a “good deal” or a “great amount” of trust in Team Trump, while only 30 percent said the same about the media.

In January, a Quinnipiac University poll asked point blank, “Do you think that most members of the news media are honest or not?” The media were rated dishonest by 57 percent and honest by 39 percent. The parties were very divided: Democrats voted 65 percent honest to 29 percent dishonest, while an overwhelming number of Republicans picked dishonest, 86 percent to 13 percent.

The media are trusted … to please the Democrats.

Before the media celebrate the “fact-checkers,” they should try a poll on “fact-checkers” themselves. Stelter interviewed and honored PolitiFact’s Holan and Washington Post “Fact-Checker” Glenn Kessler on his show. Both are trustworthy — you can trust them to go soft on Democrats.

Check out their tilt since Jan. 20.

PolitiFact has a category called “Pants on Fire” for what it rates as egregious falsehoods. Since Inauguration Day, it has given Republicans this rating 21 times and given it to Democrats just four times

The Washington Post “Fact-Checker” team is even worse. When you count up the claims receiving a “Four Pinocchios” rating for obvious lies, there are 35 such ratings for Republicans (23 for Trump alone) and only four for Democrats

It has been documented endlessly over decades that these watchdogs are as liberal as their friends in the “news” media. In 2016, their tilted ratings were used to make the bizarre claim that Hillary Clinton was “fundamentally honest.” Clinton is just as honest as the press that tried so hard to get her elected using “fact-checkers” as a weapon.

The danger of a Republican bailout of Obamacare is mounting with every passing day. Moderate Republicans calling themselves the Problem Solvers Caucus are quietly negotiating with Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to throw a multibillion-dollar lifeline to the Obamacare insurance exchanges.

This bailout, of course, would be an epic betrayal by the Republican Party, which has promised to repeal and replace the financially crumbling health law.

Obamacare’s apologists object to the term “bailout” for this rescue package. The left prefers the euphemism “stabilizing the insurance market.” They claim this is merely a payment to low-income families to help pay for escalating premiums. These payments were allegedly always part of the law as passed.
The hypocrisy here is towering. These are the same people who told us over and over again that Obamacare was going to “bend the cost curve of health care down.” These are the same people who promised that Obamacare was going to save the average family $2,500 a year in insurance premiums.

These were also the same people who swore to us that Obamacare wasn’t going to raise the federal deficit by a dime. Oh, really? Where is the $10-20 billion to pay for this new federal subsidy going to come from? Pixie dust?

Incidentally, is there even one single Obamacare promise that has been kept after seven years?

So why is everyone suddenly rallying for an Obamacare bailout? The answer is simple. The new health law has given rise to an Obamacare-industrial complex. The health system is now like a junkie hooked on federal payments.

This addiction explains why the insurance companies are lobbying furiously for these funds alongside their newfound friends at left-wing interest groups such as the Center for American Progress. The irony of this alliance is that these left-wing “allies” hate insurance companies and want to abolish them. The insurance lobby is selling rope to its hangman.

Hospital groups, the American Medical Association and the AARP are joined by the Catholic Bishops, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. (If you are donating money to any of these groups, you might want to think again.) This health care-industrial complex has only one solution to every Obamacare crackup: more regulation and more tax dollars.

Proponents argue that there was an innocent mistake in the language of the Affordable Care Act (imagine that — maybe next time they will read the bill before they vote on it) and that these bailout funds were intended to be automatic entitlement payments that would not have to be appropriated annually by Congress.

If they prevail, the insurance companies will get fatter and fatter checks from the government every year, no matter how much costs escalate. Financial accountability will be thrown out the window, and Obamacare will become an appendage of Medicaid, with exploding costs and a blank check from taxpayers.

This year the best estimate is that Obamacare will need at least $10 billion more to keep the system solvent. The death spiral in the program is intensifying with every passing month, so it’s highly predictable these costs will reach $20 billion next year and more in the years that follow.

You can call this a bailout or just a swindle of taxpayers who were fed a litany of lies about Obamacare’s virtues from the very start. Either way, taxpayers get shafted (again) and the Obamacare-industrial complex gets fat and happy. If Republicans are partners to this fiscal crime, then they are as culpable as the Democrats who passed this turkey in the first place and they certainly don’t deserve to be the governing party.

I wish I could say that it’s a shock that someone died in Charlottesville, but I’ve been predicting just this sort of thing in radio appearances for months. The liberal media is dying to blame it all on Donald Trump, but it should look in the mirror.

To begin with, the liberal media is almost entirely responsible for growing the Alt-Right merger of hate groups and internet trolls. Most people are well aware of the stifling political correctness that reached an apex under Barack Obama. People are sick and tired of being attacked and scolded by the humorless left-wing thought police every time they stray from the latest liberal doctrine. That created a large group of people who enjoyed tweaking social justice warriors and some of them realized the easiest way to do that was with racial slurs. Every time some doofus leaves a noose on a college campus or says the N-word, it’s treated like a national crisis. If you’re an anonymous troll who enjoys getting people to react to everything you say, that’s a FEATURE, not a bug. All you have to do is say something racially offensive and all these people who studiously try to ignore you will go out of their minds.

That racial element gave the Nazis, white supremacists and KKK mouth-breathers a way to connect with the more socially adept trolls making the Pepe the Frog memes. Of course, the media liberals fueled them as well with their hypocrisy. They painted EVERY white supporter of Donald Trump or the Republican Party as a racist even as they ignored and defended the vicious anti-white rhetoric that has become commonplace on the Left. Just to give you a quick example of that, there was a hashtag that trended on Twitter after the attack called #ThisIsNotUS. It started out as a way for white liberals to virtue signal, but it quickly turned into an all too typical attack on white people, America and Trump voters. Here are some of the most popular comments from the hashtag…

#ThisIsNotUs Then who is it? 63% of white men & 53% of white women voted for KKK-endorsed Trump. The majority of EVERY OTHER ETHNICITY didn’t

If you are white and you are trying to say #ThisIsNotUs you are part of the problem.

If you’re earnestly tweeting #ThisIsNotUS, know that the you might as well have been one of the white supremacists walking w/ tiki torches.

Every white person that tweets #ThisIsNotUs is being complicit in not addressing the rampant racism and bigotry that in their community

Gaga, prime example of a white woman using tag #ThisIsNotUs like this country wasn’t built on slavery & racism. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN AmeriKa

#ThisIsNotUs is how white people try to absolve themselves from their complicity in white supremacy; it v much is you, your inaction fuels it

The biggest talking point white supremacists have are comments like these. Would that be true if the mainstream media actually treated these comments with the same sort of contempt it has for the Alt-Right?

Nope.

Yet these sort of comments are MAINSTREAM on the Left. Let me repeat that. They are MAINSTREAM on the Left.

On the other hand, white supremacists are nothing on the Right. David Duke is a joke. Richard Spencer? Let me tell you a little story about Richard Spencer. I was walking around CPAC and noticed an enormous gaggle of media surrounding someone I didn’t recognize, who didn’t seem to be drawing a crowd of regular attendees. As it turns out, the massive group of media people weren’t following a big name. They were following Richard Spencer, who was later kicked out of the conference, presumably because the organizers never wanted him there in the first place.

Yet Richard Spencer, like David Duke before him, is treated like some kind of rock star by the media liberals even though he’s a nobody in the conservative movement. Why? Because they don’t care about conservative opinion. They don’t care about conservative views. They care about creating propaganda that paints the Right as a bunch of hood-wearing, Nazi-saluting scumbags. So, they treat Richard Spencer like a rock star.

This creates a sort of Kim Kardashian effect. Ninety five percent of any influence Spencer has comes from the fact that anything he does is a big deal to the media. Why were Spencer and Duke able to gather even 500 Tiki torch-waving idiots in Charlottesville? Because the media would cover everything they did with bated breath. It gave them a chance to feel important, to feel like they were making an impact. In fact, white supremacists have started to believe its own BS because they keep hearing it from the media. After fighting with Richard Spencer on Twitter, I still remember one of his fans claiming that white supremacists were an essential part of Trump getting elected. My response was….

In other words, Nazi and KKK members are HORRIBLE. The violent liberal counter-protesters are ALSO horrible. James Alex Fields, Jr? Who appears to have marched at the rally before plowing into a crowd? I condemn what he did. I also condemn the Bernie supporter who shot up a congressional Republican softball game. Additionally, I will condemn the next person on the Left or the Right who kills someone over politics, which seems inevitable when you have opposing sides carrying shields and weapons to political rallies. Those condemnations don’t make a damn bit of difference as long as the liberal media keeps elevating white supremacists and excusing the violence of the Alt-Left. I’m genuinely sorry people are dying at political rallies, but it would be surprising if the death at Charlottesville were the last one. Their blood will be on the hands of the liberal media.

]]>https://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/how-the-liberal-media-created-charlottesville/feed/0mikepasqua1How the Liberal Media Created CharlottesvilleWhy Is This Not a Story?https://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/why-is-this-not-a-story/
https://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/why-is-this-not-a-story/#commentsMon, 14 Aug 2017 05:29:19 +0000http://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/?p=3288]]>By: Debra J. Saunders

WASHINGTON — Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the former Democratic National Committee chairwoman known in political circles as DWS, is knee-deep in a scandal that involves a laptop, money and possible foreign entanglements.

Unlike the Trump Russian scandal, however, The Washington Post and New York Times have barely reported on the story, which has conservatives observing — with President Donald Trump’s Twitter account concurring — that the mainstream media have a double standard.

In February, the House sergeant-at-arms yanked House computer network access for five information technology staffers who worked as shared employees for some 30 House Democrats. Capitol Police told members that the five were under criminal investigation for possibly violating security policies — and asked members to update their security settings. By March, most Democrats had fired the five, if only because they could no longer do their jobs.

To the puzzlement of many Democrats and Republicans, Wasserman Schultz kept one of the five, Imran Awan, on the payroll, even though he could not do standard House IT work.

On July 24, federal authorities arrested Awan at Dulles Airport as the naturalized citizen was about to board a plane to his native Pakistan. According to an FBI affidavit, Awan had just wired $283,000 to Pakistan, $165,000 of it from an ill-gotten home-equity loan. The feds charged Awan with bank fraud, and then released him under supervision. Only then did Wasserman Schultz fire Awan.

Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, who was one of the fired IT workers, had left the country for Pakistan in March. While she had bought a round-trip ticket with a return date in September, FBI Special Agent Brandon C. Merriman wrote he “does not believe that Alvi has any intention to return to the United States.”

Wasserman Schultz is no obscure member of Congress. Last year she had to resign as DNC chair after WikiLeaks revealed that she had tilted the Democratic primary in favor of Hillary Clinton, even though the national committee was duty-bound to remain neutral.

Earlier this month Wasserman Schultz told the South Florida Sun Sentinel that she kept Awan on the payroll because she had “grave concerns about his due process rights being violated,” and stated her belief that the Capitol Police actions could be the result of anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistani profiling. She kept Awan on the payroll by switching his role to an advisory position.

Awan’s attorney Christopher Gowan released a statement that blamed the firings on “a frenzy of anti-Muslim bigotry,” charged that “extremist right-wing bloggers” forced Awan’s family to leave the country and voiced confidence that Awan “will soon be able to clear his name and get on with his life.”

It is important to note that federal authorities have not charged any of the IT five — Awan, Alvi, Awan’s two brothers or a friend — with any crime directly related to their House IT work.

But Matthew Whitaker, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, sees Awan’s continued presence on the payroll as a violation of House ethics rules. “After Awan was barred from accessing the House computer system, Wasserman Schultz continued to pay Awan with taxpayer funds for IT consulting – a position he could not possibly perform,” Whitaker wrote to the House Ethics Committee.

Awan’s salary also is an issue. Politico reported that Awan made nearly $2 million since he started working for House Democrats in 2004. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote that over 13 years, Awan, his brothers and wife “collected more than $4 million,” which he said is “three times higher than the norm for a government contractor.”

There is enough smoke to this story to merit intense news coverage. Yet The Washington Post, the federal government’s hometown paper, had published only two stories on the Awan saga as of Tuesday, when the Post ran an explainer that looked at the story through two lenses — one conservative, one liberal.

The “liberal media” angle: “Powerful Democratic congresswoman protects Muslim IT staffer from what she suspects is religious discrimination. She fires him after he is charged with a seemingly unrelated crime.”

For this story, the Post simply could not take a side. Its coverage of the Trump Russia probe shows no such hesitation.

Likewise The New York Times began a July 28 story with a warning of sorts — that “conservative news outlets have built a case against Imran Awan, his wife, two brothers and a friend, piece by piece.” Hmm. Could it be that conservative outlets built the case because most liberal organs didn’t see much of a story?

When Trump has railed against leaks from the intelligence community, cable pundits routinely have slammed the president for not appreciating members of the intelligence community who put their lives on the line every day. When Wasserman Schultz has accused the Capitol Police of racial or religious profiling, newspapers have simply repeated her accusation.

The twin papers focused on how the fringe has framed the story — one “YouTube conspiracy theorist” accused Awan and friends of being “Pakistani spies” — as if fringe opinion absolves them from having to follow the story where it leads.

It is impossible not to see a double standard. The Democrats’ IT guys enjoy the presumption of innocence. And that would be OK, if big beltway media showed the president the same courtesy.

]]>https://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/why-is-this-not-a-story/feed/1mikepasqua1Why Is This Not a Story?How Donald Trump is Driving the Democrats Crazyhttps://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/how-donald-trump-is-driving-the-democrats-crazy/
https://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/how-donald-trump-is-driving-the-democrats-crazy/#respondSun, 13 Aug 2017 05:04:58 +0000http://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/?p=3285]]>By: John C. Goodman

You would think the Democrats would be on cloud nine.

Donald Trump’s favorability ratings are as low as anyone can remember their being for a sitting president. The Republicans failed to repeal and replace Obamacare. They are stumbling on tax reform. They won the special elections to replace Trump’s cabinet selections. But the margin of victory in these “safe” seats was small enough to be scary. According to the Cook Political Report, if Democrats turnout in the same numbers they did in the special elections, they will pick up 80 House seats in next year’s elections.

So, is the Democratic Party breaking out the champagne? Are the party faithful celebrating and gloating over their rosy prospects for the future? Far from it. In the first six months of this year, Democrats have raised half the money Republicans have raised and they even trail in small-dollar giving.

The split among Democrats in California has become so bitter that it made the front page of Thursday’s New York Times. The problems are not confined to the west coast. The split is evident in New York stateand in other deep blue places. “California is a Warning for the National Party,” the newspaper’s headline blared.

So, what are Democrats fighting about? Issues. Issues? Yes, issues. For the first time in a long, long time, Democrats are having to confront in a serious way what they really stand for. If that surprises you, it’s probably because you haven’t been paying close attention.

Other than Obamacare, Democrats haven’t really had a new idea or a bold idea or anything you might even call an idea at all for … how long? … I would say at least 40 years.

Forty years ago, Jimmy Carter was president and the one lasting thing he did was preside over the deregulation of our major regulatory agencies. That, of course, was a Republican idea. But party didn’t matter. For the last 40 years, the policy agenda has been the Republican agenda: deregulation, privatization, entitlement reform, the flat tax, school vouchers, private social security accounts, free markets, free trade, etc. No matter which party was in power, that was what we implemented or what we argued about – both here and all over the western world.

Through it all, the identity of the Democratic Party tended to be one of nebulous opposition. If you were to the left of whatever the Republicans were doing – whether a little bit to the left or way over on the far left, the Democrats were the party for you. For the most part, Democrats didn’t bother to offer much more definition than that of who they were and what they thought.

Until there was Trump. Even though the concept of a left-right continuum can be a bit misleading, bear with the metaphor for a moment. Trump was definitely to the left of Hillary Clinton on foreign trade and international military engagement. On immigration, he was more aligned with the position of organized labor, while she was more aligned with big business and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Forgetting for the moment the disastrous Republican attempts at health reform, Trump’s rhetoric on the issue was definitely to the left of Hillary on that as well. (He wanted to insure everybody; she was going to leave 30 million uninsured.)

Although Trump’s appointees are busily overturning Obama’s labor regulations, it would not surprise me if polls reveal that Trump is viewed as more pro-union than Hillary. During the campaign, Trump said he wanted a tax cut for the middle class, not for the rich. That’s easy to dismiss as campaign rhetoric. But now in office, he is entertaining the idea of a tax increase on the rich!

An editorial in the Wall Street Journalby Frank Buckley contains a fascinating graphic. It shows that 73% of the electorate is left-of-center on economic issues, but 52% is socially conservative. Although most of us don’t think of Trump as a social conservative, he won overwhelmingly among this group. The left is so in-your-face on these issues, a Republican doesn’t really have to say much of anything to get the social conservative vote.

But Trump also got a fair proportion of those who were liberal on economic issues. These are votes that Ted Cruz never would have received.

These developments have been devastating to the Democratic Party. They have left the party divided, dispirited and angry.

Why anger, you might ask? Frustrated. Disappointed. Disgusted. Embarrassed. Turned off. Those emotions could be readily understood. But what is producing so much anger among Democrats and among the liberal media?

I suspect it’s because Trump appears so simple and mercurial about it. His political positions seem to emerge off-the-cuff, by twitter or impromptu press conference or whim. Like the little girl who declared the emperor had no clothes, he appears to be discombobulating the body politic without any evidence of scheming or careful calculation.

Then there is identity politics – which is what the Democrats have been all about for the past several decades. While Democrats were appealing to blacks as blacks, Hispanics as Hispanics, women as women, gays as gay, etc., Donald Trump was the first Republican in modern times to interject identity politics into a national election. It was the oldest form of identity politics in the history of elections – all over the world. It’s called nationalism.

“Make America great again,” resonated. Just as “make Japan great again” would resonate in Japan or “make Argentina great again” would resonate in Argentina. Outside of the Middle East (where religious rivalry dominates), nationalism is the strongest political force in the world today.

President Donald Trump has a skill for recruiting Cabinet officers he has treated badly. Serving in his administration can require selfless devotion to duty. Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, could tell you about that. So could Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who is swiftly becoming the Cabinet superstar.

She took the lead in persuading China and Russia to join the sanctioning of North Korea, all to persuade North Korean President Kim Jong Un to think again about his boastful threat to ignite World War III.

Such a catastrophe might at last be “the war to end all wars,” as former President Woodrow Wilson said of World War I. Kim’s reckless exuberance with his nuclear toys has terrified the world into a new reality, and Haley used it to win the approval of United Nations Resolution 2371, which she calls “the single largest economic sanctions package ever leveled against the North Korean regime” and “the most stringent set of sanctions on any country in a generation.”

If enforced to the limit — and that’s a big “if” — the effects could reduce Pyongyang’s exports by $1 billion, which is approximately a third of its revenue from exports. There is a total ban on its coal and minerals exports, which are key to keeping its nuclear and missile scientists at work.

North Korea sees “the international community standing with one voice,” Haley says. “China didn’t pull off. Russia didn’t pull off. All of the Security Council and the international community said, ‘That’s enough. You’ve got to stop it. It’s reckless. It’s irresponsible.’ The international community really laid down the groundwork of saying, ‘We’re not going to watch you do this anymore.'” Un’s provocations have even exhausted the patience of China, his enabler and patron.

The prospect of pocketbook pain is always persuasive, and North Korea’s blustery response arrived as if on cue. “North Korea will make the U.S. pay dearly for all the heinous crime it commits against the state and the people of this country,” the state-run media warned. Military intelligence services reported that just days ago, the state was moving anti-ship cruise missiles into position off its eastern coast in anticipation of action.

“They’re gonna threaten, they’re gonna do all of these things,” Haley says of the bluster, “but we’re not gonna run scared from them. … China stepped up and said, ‘We will follow through on these sanctions.’ … And now, we have to just stay on them to make sure they do that. … Our job is to defend not just the United States but our allies. … we have to protect our friends, and we’re going to continue to do that..”

This is not the kind of talk the rest of the world is accustomed to hearing from the American ambassador to the United Nations. Haley reported for duty at a United Nations that was puzzled and despondent over the defeat of Hillary Clinton. Many regarded her as a patronage payoff by the new president; they said that her term at the U.N. would be just another entry on her resume and that she would leave for the speaking circuit to cash in on political celebrity. “No one at the United Nations,” said one professor pundit, “will think Nikki Haley is someone to talk to who will be either knowledgeable or close to the president.”

He missed by only a mile. Perhaps buoyed on such modest expectations, she has prospered at the U.N., working hard to build close relationships with other delegations, particularly those of America’s European allies. Over the first months of her tenure, she earned the respect of other delegates that enabled her to rally support for American positions on Syria and North Korea.

Her frequent and aggressive scolding of Russian support for Syrian President Bashar Assad earned her a reputation for leading, as well as following, American policy. She squelched the long-standing Russian goal of making Russia the moral actor in the Syrian civil war. And she still won Russian support for the sanctions vote.

Little more than a year ago, she seemed unlikely to be a part of a Trump administration. She clashed with then-candidate Trump on the eve of the South Carolina primary, having said sharp things about him and endorsed Sen. Mario Rubio. “During anxious times,” she said, “it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation.”

Trump unleashed a Twitter attack. “The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!” he tweeted angrily. But that was forgotten by both of them when Trump assembled his Cabinet. He needed someone who knew how to speak up, even to him. She learned in South Carolina, as only a governor can, how to twist arms to rally support.

Someone asked her the other day whether she had to twist a lot of arms to bring Russia and China along on the sanctions vote. She replied: “Yes, we did.”

People say the movie industry has lost its way and alienated its audience, but I’m super-excited about the future of movies, especially in light of Tinseltown’s current trend towards goose-stepping leftist conformity! How can that go wrong?

From fussy fascist fatties like Lena Dunham listening in to stewardesses’ private chats, to withered crones like Chelsea Handler wishing we too could arrest Chinese tourists for goofing on Hitler like the Germans do – apparently there’s no one else in Germany who needs arresting – it’s becoming clear that free-speech and free thoughts are things of the past! Sure, you could Google “free speech,” but the result will probably come back with a link to a long lecture about how your penis makes you bad. Remember, diverse conformity is strength or something.

Well, Hollywood is totally onboard with these trends, and with that in mind, we have plenty to look forward to. Just check out these coming attractions!

Xe-Day: After the racist, sexist, and homophobic nightmare that was Dunkirk left audiences literally shaking, moviegoers are begging to see a war movie that doesn’t just focus on the people who were actually there or things that really happened. Well, your wish is Hollywood’s command! You thought you knew the whole story of the Normandy operation, but what you really knew was the phallo people of pallor version that minimized and invisibled the contributions of trans soldiers of heft!

Xe-Day is the stirring story of the she-roes who didn’t let their birth genders or carbohydrate addictions get in the way of defeating the Nazis! With the cry of “Come on you she-males, you want to live forever!” these pudgy paratroopers aren’t about to allow the Third Reich to mansplain away their girl power! It’s no longer just Band of Brothersanymore! It’s band of brothers, sisters, and others! Opening this Winter Solstice!

1984 II: This exciting reboot turns expectations on their heads as courageous social justice warriors root out bad thinking thought criminals like Winston Smith! You’ll thrill as angry college students confront people with ideas they don’t like, and punish and kill them for daring to be different – all in the name of diversity! When this smash hit is over, you too will love Big Mother!

Dirty Harriet: Take that, cro-magnon Clint Eastwood clichés! This modern cop movie teaches us that every life matters, except blue ones! Female-identifying (but curious!) Detective Harriet Callahan gets all the dirty jobs, like running diversity classes for those knuckle dragging patrolman who refuse to abandon their wrong thinking. Pairing up with a differently-abled Muslim dwarf of color, she busts the real villains…the people trying to keep order on the streets! And she does it with hugs! Go ahead, make her day – by admitting your privilege!

Son of an Inconvenient Truth: It’s his third try, and this time it’s personal! Al Gore takes time away from his busy schedule of eating, dining, having dinner, and pestering innocent masseuses, to explain in detail why his previous predictions of total climate Armageddon that were supposed to come true a couple years ago haven’t. Spoiler Alert – it’s all Trump’s fault!

From Russia with Lunacy: The Trump/Russia collusion story takes a romantic twist as a brave and intrepid foreigner refuses to be silenced and courageously uses social media to provide America with the forbidden truth about how Trump and Putin got together with the Trilateral Commission and the Reverse Vampires and personally kept Hillary Clinton from campaigning in Michigan, all in defiance of the commands of the Grand Marshal of the Supreme Court and her FISA warrants. Don’t bring the kids because of the controversial dossier scene! Written and directed by, and starring, Louise Mensch, and co-starring Ted Lieu as “Weenis.”

There’s Something About Sanctuary Cities: This outrageous comedy provides laughs and lessons – because comedy with a message is the funniest comedy. It follows the adventures of people who shouldn’t be in the country raping, looting, and pillaging, because America is bad and deserves it. And all the while our heroes are dodging those evil people from ICE who are trying to enforce the laws that our elected officials made. Ben Stiller makes a comeback as a newly woke resident of San Francisco who learns that as an American citizen he really has no moral right to tell foreigners that they can’t be here, and then gets shot as part of a gang initiation by an undocumented worker named “Vato Loco 69.” Rated: MS-13.

The Bike Lane Warrior: Mad Max is back, but this time he’s caring about the environment! Forget the carbon criminal Max of the past. It’s no longer the last of the V8 interceptors; now he’s got a 10-speed cruiser with a banana seat and he’s pedaling his way through Brooklyn seeking adventure! Starring Zooey Deschanel as “The Humongess,” a 95-pound chick who is tougher and better at fighting than Max and every other man because of girl power!

Lassie Must Die!: Little Timmy learns the heartbreaking truth, that his corgi is helping to cause global warming and is also annoying his Muslim neighbor who just got here from Somalia thanks to a judge in Hawaii! Timmy realizes that his dog must be sacrificed to the Weird Weather Religion and to the whims of some pushy foreigner. After all, as Timmy learns, he’s merely an American citizen, so he doesn’t matter.

To Chill With A Mattress Girl: This is a college comedy where a goofy frat boy learns a lesson in active consent when the sorority babe he dated decides 10 months later that the romantic interlude she agreed to via notarized contracts signed on videotape was actually rape because the boy stopped returning her texts and her Professor of Uterus Studies said so. Brace yourself for the hilarious “mattress party” sequence as dour feminists crash a dance and read non-rhyming poetry about how they were oppressed growing up as the daughters of doctors and lawyers in Connecticut and Santa Monica!

Harry Potter and Trump Is Totally Valdemort: The movie millennial audiences have been waiting for! Without actual religion to provide them meaning, young folks are filling their empty heads with childish tales of wands and wizards – and JK Rowling is only too happy to keep making money off them. In this tale, Harry Potter comes out of retirement and takes on the evil POTUS, who is a spirit of evil for some reason. Harry also makes out with the weird redheaded boy because the other books were too cisnormative.

Yes, Hollywood has learned plenty about entertaining us over the years. I, for one can’t wait to go spend $50 for a couple of tickets to sit in a dark, sticky room with people poking at their cell phones while garbage is projected in front of me. But apparently you can, since Hollywood seems to be hitting rock bottom in terms of box office. Oh well. If you want something awesome to entertain you, maybe you should read a book, and then another book.

CNN reporter Jim Acosta pitched another fit in the White House briefing room on Aug. 2, asserting that President Trump’s immigration policy was refuted by a poem engraved on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty. Trump aide Stephen Miller fought him tooth and nail, slamming him for a “cosmopolitan bias.” There was no doubt that the liberal elites would sympathize with the acidic Acosta.

HBO’s comedic anchorman John Oliver uncorked how the media really felt, denouncing Miller as “one of the most revolting humans” he has ever seen and a “vitamin D-deficient minion,” whatever that means.

Everyone is used to Trump & Co. being on the wrong end of the liberal media’s brigade of “independent fact-checkers.” The Washington Post “Fact Checker” team arrived on what it accurately called the “debate” between Miller and Acosta. Michelle Ye Hee Lee insisted this was more about checking Miller. “The Fact Checker is not a media critic, and we generally do not fact-check members of the media — certainly not the opinions of individual journalists,” she said.

Isn’t that extraordinary? It is below the media to analyze themselves. But here’s what’s surprising: She had to admit that Miller was correct on all three statements she evaluated.

First, Acosta lectured that Miller was trying to “change” immigration policy by requiring immigrants to speak English and cited the Emma Lazarus poem about the huddled masses “yearning to breathe free.”

Lee ruled, “Miller is correct that English proficiency currently is a requirement for naturalization.” She tried to soften the blow by declaring: “Neither got it quite right about the Statue of Liberty. The statue, indeed, was a gift from France as a symbol of liberty enlightening the world — not about immigration.” But then, she weirdly asserted that the biographer of Lazarus believed she “was the first American to make any sense of this statue.”

Acosta kept badgering Miller about English proficiency, and “that’s never been what the United States has been about,” he says. Miller replied: “But your statement’s shockingly ahistorical in another respect, too, which is if you look at the history of immigration, it’s actually ebbed and flowed. We’ve had periods of very large waves, followed by periods of less immigration, and more immigration.”

Lee ruled: “Miller is correct. Immigration levels ebbed and flowed throughout U.S. history, and the flow was controlled through restrictive legislation until 1965.” Liberals can despair over it, but that’s history.

Then Acosta really fell on his face. He said, “But this whole notion of, ‘Well, they could learn — you know, they have to learn English before they get to the United States,’ are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia?”

Miller went for the knockout and responded: “I am shocked at your statement that you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English. It reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree. … It’s so insulting to millions of hard-working immigrants who do speak English from all over the world.”

The Post fact-checker ruled: “Miller has the edge here. English is an official language in dozens of countries other than Great Britain and Australia, and is spoken in roughly 100 countries. It is the most commonly studied foreign language in the world.”

When Miller was done, Acosta complained, “You called me ignorant on national television.” The Washington Post “fact-checker” squad must have agonized as it underlined Acosta as the ignorant half of this exchange. If it did, kudos to the Washington Post for breaking the mold.

Several new polls are out and none of them look good for the president.

Gallup has President Trump with only a 36 percent job approval rating — and a 60 percent disapproval number.

The news from Quinnipiac University is even worse. In that poll, only 33 percent of American voters have a favorable opinion of him — while 61 percent disapprove of the job he’s doing.

According to Quinnipiac, “American voters say 54-26 percent that they are embarrassed rather than proud to have Trump as president. Voters say 57-40 percent he is abusing the powers of his office and say 60-36 percent that he believes he is above the law.”

Is President Trump levelheaded? Seventy-one percent say no.

How about honest? Sixty-two percent say he isn’t.

Does he care about the average American? Fifty-nine percent say he doesn’t.

Sixty-three percent say he doesn’t share their values.

“It’s hard to pick what is the most alarming number in the troubling trail of new lows for President Donald Trump,” according to Tim Malloy, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. “Profound embarrassment over his performance in office and deepening concern over his level-headedness have to raise the biggest red flags.”

To Trump’s most loyal supporters, who have next to no faith in polls, it’s fake news. Except, the polls can’t be all wrong, can they? In the five newest major polls, President Trump doesn’t hit 40 percent approval. The Real Clear Politics average has him at 39.4 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval.

President Trump does have a 76 percent favorable rating among Republicans in the Quinnipiac poll, but while that looks good by comparison, it’s not great. A president needs more than 3 out of 4 members of his own party supporting him. And only 34 percent of independents like the job Trump is doing.

But there is one group of Americans, as The New York Times explains it, that despite the daily chaos emanating from the Trump White House still strongly supports him and “has never really wavered: the leaders of the conservative movement.”

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council who serves as a pastor at a church in Louisiana told the Times that, “There’s not a Sunday that goes by that I don’t have people in the congregation that will grab me and say, ‘How’s the president doing? Did you see him this week? I’m praying for him every day and I’m just so angry at the media and how they’re attacking him.'”

I’ve always been fascinated how people of faith who supposedly admire civility and decency and detest abortion so love this man who brags about grabbing women by the you-know-what and, until he decided to run for president as a Republican, was a Democrat who gave lots of money to Nancy Pelosi, a leader of a party that stands, above all else, for abortion rights. But I guess deciding to ban transgender people from the military (as the president did, in a tweet no less) goes a long way to put smiles on evangelical faces. And then there’s the Hillary Factor — as in anybody was better than a liberal like her as far as a lot of evangelicals were concerned.

But it’s not just evangelicals who haven’t wavered; neither have some media conservatives, the ones mainly on radio and TV. But while it’s one thing to support Trump over Hillary Clinton, it’s quite another for radio and TV conservatives to willfully play the role of sycophants for this president.

Bret Stephens, The New York Times columnist, asked a good question: “Thought exercise for Trump’s media defenders: If the president were to sexually assault a woman in the Oval Office tomorrow, would you still justify your vote on the view that Neil Gorsuch’s elevation to the Supreme Court made it all worthwhile?”

I wonder how Tony Perkins and Sean Hannity would answer that one.

Yes, poll numbers go up and poll numbers go down. To the extent that they’re accurate, they only tell you what’s going on in the moment. But if something doesn’t change soon, Republicans could lose the House next year. And if that happens, it won’t be long before there’s a vote by the Democratic majority to impeach the president. It won’t get far; there won’t be enough votes to convict him in the Senate. Still, Trump and his loyal followers don’t need any of this.

There is one hope, a sliver of sunshine peeking through the clouds — and his name is John Kelly, the president’s new chief of staff.

That was a good move by the president. Now let’s see if a four-star, no-nonsense Marine general can rein in this impulsive president. The stakes are high. Donald Trump’s presidency hangs in the balance.

George Will’s column, “Feeble president is good for nation,” makes some striking assertions. “Trump is something the nation did not know it needed—a feeble president whose manner can cure the nation’s excessive fixation with the presidency.”

Both Presidents Bush and Obama stretched the power of the presidency. George Will explains, “After 2001, ‘The Decider’ (Bush) decided to start a preventive war and to countenance torture prohibited by treaty or statue. His successor (Obama) had ‘a pen and a phone,’ an indifference to the Constitution’s Take Care Clause (the President ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed’) and disdain for the separation of powers, for which he was repeatedly rebuked by the Supreme Court.’”

President Trump is not feeble or lacking in strengths. But because of his lack of experience, narcissistic tendencies, and polarizing style, congress may be forced to take a more strategic and assertive role. George Will points to that opportunity: “Because this president has neither a history of party identification nor an understanding of reciprocal loyalty, Congressional Republicans are acquiring a constitutional—a Madisonian—ethic.”

Gen. John Kelly, Trump’s new Chief of Staff, may provide the structure and discipline to help bring order to this administration’s early missteps. Poitico reports: “Kelly assembled senior aides in his office and laid down the rules of the road: More accountability on how jobs are done. More limitations on access to the Oval Office. More structure. Better briefings and information for the president. A White House staff where everyone reports to Kelly.” Kelly may help Trump deliver on more of his promised agenda, but America may still benefit from a more balanced sharing of powers.

With Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branch, critical things can and should get done. Should Republican principles be more important than presidents in guiding our policy priorities in Washington? Certainly.

US Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona has just published a controversial new book, Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principles. Although some question Flake’s own priorities and voting record, he calls for putting principles ahead of personalities. Losers don’t legislate, but legislation must serve a purpose. He writes, “If this was our Faustian bargain, then it was not worth it. If ultimately our principles were so malleable as to no longer be principles, then what was the point of political victories in the first place?”

Like many conservatives, Flake believes that Trump appointed an exceptional Supreme Court justice. His positions on cutting regulations and initiating a tax policy that lowers rates and broadens the base are easy to embrace and support. But Flake feels that Trump strays from conservative principles on curtailing free trade. Free trade serves our citizens, our businesses, and keeps important allies in our trade orbit in an expanding global economy.

Republicans have lost in elections when they stray from the principles that guide them. In 2001, President George W. Bush came into the Presidency and pushed for “No child left behind” and a prescription drug entitlement plan. He promoted his “caring conservative” version of bigger, better government, and the principle of smaller government was pushed aside. In the mid-term elections, the GOP lost the Senate.

Our Founding Fathers wisely built checks and balances into our Constitutional structure. It’s time for Republicans in Congress to assert their role and let Republican principles be their primary guide. They should support and work with Trump whenever they can. They should work with Democrats willing to build on common ground, but they should not follow Trump where he departs from what we stand for. Winners legislate; it’s time they assert their priorities.

In the coming months, I will focus on the six primary principles that California Republicans have said unites them: smaller government and less government regulations; lower taxes on small businesses and individuals; a strong military and homeland security; sustain the American Dream through personal freedom and responsibility; promote educational excellence through school choice; and support a free-enterprise, free-trade economy. It’s time Congress and President Trump get busy delivering on what matters most.

Our Founding Fathers wisely built checks and balances into our Constitutional structure. It’s time for Republicans in Congress to assert their role and let Republican principles be their primary guide. They should support and work with Trump whenever they can. They should work with Democrats willing to build on common ground, but they should not follow Trump where he departs from what we stand for. Winners legislate; it’s time they assert their priorities.

In the coming months, I will focus on the six primary principles that California Republicans have said unites them: smaller government and less government regulations; lower taxes on small businesses and individuals; a strong military and homeland security; sustain the American Dream through personal freedom and responsibility; promote educational excellence through school choice; and support a free-enterprise, free-trade economy. It’s time Congress and President Trump get busy delivering on what matters most.

Our Founding Fathers wisely built checks and balances into our Constitutional structure. It’s time for Republicans in Congress to assert their role and let Republican principles be their primary guide. They should support and work with Trump whenever they can. They should work with Democrats willing to build on common ground, but they should not follow Trump where he departs from what we stand for. Winners legislate; it’s time they assert their priorities.

In the coming months, I will focus on the six primary principles that California Republicans have said unites them: smaller government and less government regulations; lower taxes on small businesses and individuals; a strong military and homeland security; sustain the American Dream through personal freedom and responsibility; promote educational excellence through school choice; and support a free-enterprise, free-trade economy. It’s time Congress and President Trump get busy delivering on what matters most.

]]>https://whatiamscreaming.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/principles-over-personalities/feed/0mikepasqua1Principles over Personalities